1. Introduction In the introduction chapter it is told with examples how social network is actually not working that socially and collaboratively as it’s hoped. Writers refers to Wikipedia project and tell us, that there are only a small number of editors who are in fact sharing their knowledge through wikipedia and millions others are just enjoying the benefits of information served by it. As a reader I would appreciate, if authors could give me a bit more specific data on wikipedia users and their actual activity while they are referring to these figures and to wikipedia as an example of the phenomenon.
Introduction part of the article is actually divided into two different chapters. The first chapter, which is titled as an introduction, includes very little information on the study and its topic. Title of the second chapter is “Knowledge exchange as a motivational problem” and this part of the introduction is more substantial. In this paragraph authors explain basic concepts of the study and they link the study carefully in to previous researches. It would be easier to the readers if authors could sum up the content of the first and the second chapters and revise that way the content of the introduction
In the end of introduction section writers do state the purpose of the study clearly. The purpose isto test social psychology theories of social loafing in knowledge exchange situations and by testing, presentto readers, how to stimulate knowledge exchange. Approach of this descriptive study is the one of the social psychology.
2. Materials and Methods In the chapter “The Assignment” the basic idea of the experiment and the methods used are presented, but the explanation of the arrangement could be more precise. Procedures of the research arrangements are not told from the beginning. To enable the repetition of the experiment, it would be good to know for example, how participants of the experiment were chosen, how many of them they were altogether and what kind of information they had been given of the study.
While the basic experiment pattern is explained before the results, there are some further research arrangements and additional tools and tests, which are not explained nor told until in the following chapters along with the results.
Design of the experiments seems to be appropriate for the purposes of this descriptive study.
3. Results
Results of the study are presented in the subsections under the title "Results of a Series of Experiments". Results are presented in a logical sequence and the figures are informative excluding figure 1, which could need some revising. In this section there already is some analysis made of the results.
4. Conclusion In the chapter "Some Practical Consequences" authors sum up the results of the study and they link the findings to social networks, wikis and forums. As a title of the chapter suggests, there seems to be only some practical thoughts and chapter could be continued.
5. Discussion In the article there isn’t a discussion chapter.
6. Title In the title of the study there is mentioned a concept of motivational problem. In the study while referring to this same problem, there is used a concept of a social dilemma. Title of the article does define that this paper is a report of results of empirical research program. Title doesn’t reveal the methods used in this research or conclusions made.
7. Abstract The paper includes an abstract, in which authors have addressed the practical problem of the study – how to increase the willingness of the group members to share their knowledge with other group members in computer supported collaborative learning situations. Study design is described and factors, which are identified in study to influence into social dilemma, are presented.
8. Final Analysis
List the three most important IMPROVEMENTS that are needed.
1. Content of the first and the second chapters could be revised/summarised.
2. It could be easier to read the article, if it would follow the structure of scientific reports.
3. Discussion section is missing, conclusion section could be broader.
List the three most important STRENGHTS of this paper, which should not be lost in the process of revision.
1. Empirical research program is clearly reported (though report isn't following the structure of scientific reports)
2. Topic is interesting and there is a need of better understanding of factors effecting on knowledge sharing.
3. Article provides a good review to the theories of the topic.
WRITING STYLE and LANGUAGE
Article is well written and easy to read.
In my view this paper should be placed in the following category:
ACCEPT: publish as it is
ACCEPT: but in of need further work as indicated in this review REVISE AND RESUBMIT: in need of major changes as indicated in this review
REJECT: for reasons indicated in this review
Reviewer’s Comments
I got the impression that most parts of the study have been published previously by Cress et al in 2005 – 2008.In this paper authors summarize findings of their earlier studies to give readers practical advices how the exchange of information can be stimulated in contex of computer supported learning situations. It seems to me, that there isn’t that many new findings introduced in this paper, but article does give a good review of interesting topic and it presents a series of experiments and findings.There seems to be a good amount of relevant references used and methods and materials of the research are presented clearly.
REVIEW - COMMENTS FROM REFEREES
Cress, U. & Kimmerle, J. (2009). Knowledge Exchange as a Motivational Problem – Results of an Empirical Research Program1. Introduction
In the introduction chapter it is told with examples how social network is actually not working that socially and collaboratively as it’s hoped. Writers refers to Wikipedia project and tell us, that there are only a small number of editors who are in fact sharing their knowledge through wikipedia and millions others are just enjoying the benefits of information served by it. As a reader I would appreciate, if authors could give me a bit more specific data on wikipedia users and their actual activity while they are referring to these figures and to wikipedia as an example of the phenomenon.
Introduction part of the article is actually divided into two different chapters. The first chapter, which is titled as an introduction, includes very little information on the study and its topic. Title of the second chapter is “Knowledge exchange as a motivational problem” and this part of the introduction is more substantial. In this paragraph authors explain basic concepts of the study and they link the study carefully in to previous researches. It would be easier to the readers if authors could sum up the content of the first and the second chapters and revise that way the content of the introduction
In the end of introduction section writers do state the purpose of the study clearly. The purpose is to test social psychology theories of social loafing in knowledge exchange situations and by testing, present to readers, how to stimulate knowledge exchange. Approach of this descriptive study is the one of the social psychology.
2. Materials and Methods
In the chapter “The Assignment” the basic idea of the experiment and the methods used are presented, but the explanation of the arrangement could be more precise. Procedures of the research arrangements are not told from the beginning. To enable the repetition of the experiment, it would be good to know for example, how participants of the experiment were chosen, how many of them they were altogether and what kind of information they had been given of the study.
While the basic experiment pattern is explained before the results, there are some further research arrangements and additional tools and tests, which are not explained nor told until in the following chapters along with the results.
Design of the experiments seems to be appropriate for the purposes of this descriptive study.
3. Results
Results of the study are presented in the subsections under the title "Results of a Series of Experiments". Results are presented in a logical sequence and the figures are informative excluding figure 1, which could need some revising. In this section there already is some analysis made of the results.
4. Conclusion
In the chapter "Some Practical Consequences" authors sum up the results of the study and they link the findings to social networks, wikis and forums. As a title of the chapter suggests, there seems to be only some practical thoughts and chapter could be continued.
5. Discussion
In the article there isn’t a discussion chapter.
6. Title
In the title of the study there is mentioned a concept of motivational problem. In the study while referring to this same problem, there is used a concept of a social dilemma. Title of the article does define that this paper is a report of results of empirical research program. Title doesn’t reveal the methods used in this research or conclusions made.
7. Abstract
The paper includes an abstract, in which authors have addressed the practical problem of the study – how to increase the willingness of the group members to share their knowledge with other group members in computer supported collaborative learning situations. Study design is described and factors, which are identified in study to influence into social dilemma, are presented.
8. Final Analysis
List the three most important IMPROVEMENTS that are needed.
1. Content of the first and the second chapters could be revised/summarised.
2. It could be easier to read the article, if it would follow the structure of scientific reports.
3. Discussion section is missing, conclusion section could be broader.
List the three most important STRENGHTS of this paper, which should not be lost in the process of revision.
1. Empirical research program is clearly reported (though report isn't following the structure of scientific reports)
2. Topic is interesting and there is a need of better understanding of factors effecting on knowledge sharing.
3. Article provides a good review to the theories of the topic.
WRITING STYLE and LANGUAGE
Article is well written and easy to read.
In my view this paper should be placed in the following category:
ACCEPT: publish as it is
ACCEPT: but in of need further work as indicated in this review
REVISE AND RESUBMIT: in need of major changes as indicated in this review
REJECT: for reasons indicated in this review
Reviewer’s Comments
I got the impression that most parts of the study have been published previously by Cress et al in 2005 – 2008. In this paper authors summarize findings of their earlier studies to give readers practical advices how the exchange of information can be stimulated in contex of computer supported learning situations. It seems to me, that there isn’t that many new findings introduced in this paper, but article does give a good review of interesting topic and it presents a series of experiments and findings. There seems to be a good amount of relevant references used and methods and materials of the research are presented clearly.